When is a campaign promise considered unfulfilled?

I asked this in another thread, but I'm curious what people think.

During the campaign, Obama promised to repeal DADT. If Congress does it, say, next year, is that still a fulfilled promise? It would seem so, but there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus.

Or has the promise already been broken because it hasn't happened already?

I'm just curious as to why so many people seem to believe that the issue is completely dead and state that Obama has already broken his promise, when Gibbs specifically said *last week* that Obama still intends to repeal it. As many have noted, the Pentagon has stated that there are 'no immediate plans' to revoke it, but 'not immediately' does not equate to 'not ever'.

To be clear, I want it repealed yesterday, if not sooner. But, I'm also a realist and understand that there are many priorities in the administration, Obama is trying to clean up eight years of Bush/Cheney, and his idea of where each issue should lie is likely different than mine.

Thoughts?

chill the fuck out.

I don't have an answer to your (very good) question but I think that the man deserves at least 6 months to one year to address some of these things.

He has accomplished a lot in his first 100 days, he has an agenda and a schedule to follow. He'll get to his campaign promises, he'll get the troops out of Iraq, and he will repeal DADT. As you said, he has a huge mess to clean up and he isn't a genie.

and complaints that he's not doing enough. So far, it seems like he's doing what he can with what he inherited.

I think that is enough time to address all critical issues and DADT should be in the next quarter. Just my opinion.

The fact that Gibbs confirmed that Obama wants it repealed just last week makes me think that it's on the agenda. Not immediately, but relatively soon.

if he had a chance to vote on it, or push for it and didn't, then I would argue that it is unfulfilled at that time.

The campaign never said anything like "I will close X/Get us out of Y/Stop Z/etc..if it arrives on my desk." The campaign always says I will do X/ Get us out of Y....


You can get away with not doing a lot or doing a lot of what you said you wouldn't do in the honeymoon.

Lots of things listed as "in the works", but some, like DADT, are stalled. Not broken - just held up at this time.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/

Gibbs has indicated that Obama wants it appealed, but the Pentagon has indicated that there are no immediate plans to do so.

To me, that means that it's on the agenda, just not the short-term one.

Circumstances once in office have changed or turn out to be different from what Obama thought they might be.

Happens every election, of course. The best of plans run into the land of compromise that is Washington, DC.

...but aren't sincere about it.

...and I don't suspect that in the case of our current POTUS.

I think he takes his responsibilities seriously.

I also don't think he would have been so adamant about repealing DADT if he didn't intend to.

Not that I'm not impressed with what's been done.

But its clear that some of the greatest obstacles are supposed to be on our side.

I think it's taken some time for the parts to get moving, but once they start getting things passed, I expect the pace to increase.

Also, as another poster noted down-thread, the 2010 mid-terms could be very important for some of the more controversial stuff that we want to accomplish. If we continue the '06/'08 trend and gain more seats in Congress, it could firm up the Senate enough to get the tough stuff through.

Cowards.

Jesus, even some Republicans are showing us that they can support the president.

Inertia, I think you're right.

Avoid the rush!

a long time ago..and if it's not perfect it doesn't count.

require Congress to act. I don't remember a campaign promise to hope Congress fixes DADT. that probably wouldn't have resonated.

So he wants congress to do it so the next President can't change it. If he reverses it by Presidential Order, the congress won't feel the need to act.

And likely an accurate one.

thats the only sensible standard.


If I promise my boss to finish a report by the end of the day, he should fuck off if he expects me to have it turned in by 8:30am.

he's not going to do it.

:sarcasm:

or if they blatantly reverse themselves on it (in which case they won't end up doing anything about it all the same)? :shrug: At least, that's what I've always thought. I didn't realize until recently that not doing anything about something an elected official campaigned on (i.e. DADT, FOCA) during the first four months in office qualified a campaign promise as being "unfulfilled", particularly since there were no promises made AFAIK, for example, that either of those two things would be dealt with before, say, the economy. As far as some people here are concerned, Obama has already broken most (all?) of his campaign promises and thrown a LOT of people "under the bus".

On the other hand, you did include this point "or if they blatantly reverse themselves on it". Things like the torture photos and the military tribunals would seem to qualify for this caveat of your own interpretation.

DADT, not so much... though it's a close call as Obama writes letters to discharged military personnel, but then apparently can't be bothered to get past "initial stages of a beginning conversation". That's not a reversal... that's just a stall, like my $400 car liked to do...

A lot of people around here seem to be acting rather angry and dejected lately because they seem to believe that because he hasn't moved on every one of their concerns within the first four months, that he's either forgotten about it, doesn't care about it, won't ever get around to doing anything about it, or, worse, that has simply thrown their issue or this or that community "under the bus". Worrying about a leader going back on his/her word is certainly a legitimate concern but it's much more productive IMHO to get out there and organize and contact their representatives and the President and let them know about their concerns and how important they are to them instead of sitting around here bashing people who have, shall we say, a more optimistic or understanding perspective on Obama and his performance so far.

Neither Obama nor any other politician is going to do EVERYTHING he/she promised on the campaign trail within four months or maybe even a year and sometimes, when confronted with unforeseen realities, they may even *gasp* change their mind on something- like the torture photos (although I'm not sure that he ever mentioned any promises to release them on the campaign trail aside from promising to be more "transparent", which IMHO he's largely been so far). Besides, he DID give us the torture memos, which is WAY more than we EVER got from Bush (and definitely would not have gotten from McCain/Palin). We will likely get the pictures eventually through the courts but at least then Obama will have some political "cover" and the Repukes/MSM won't be able to accuse Obama, albeit unfairly (of course), of "endangering the troops". His release of the torture memos alone, however, have already roiled the waters quite a bit and between them and the Republican's dumba** decision to try to obscure the issue by going after Pelosi and touting the so-called integrity of Bushco's CIA "briefers" and their "subjective" recollection of events, we may actually get some Bushco torture investigations now. The fact of the matter is that Obama is struggling to stay WELL ABOVE the whole torture debate because he knows that if he is seen as the one pushing it against the former (mis-)administration (i.e. "Victor's Justice"), the Repukes are going to finally have their "issue" to bludgeon Obama to (political) death with.

So far, in at least in regards to Gitmo and DADT, he has continued to reaffirm his commitment to doing what he said he was going to do in both cases and I believe he will do what he said he is going to do WHEN HE IS READY. Unfortunately, other people's timetables for addressing these things are not usually going to be his timetable. If there is anything that I've observed about Obama so far, it's that he seems very pragmatic, purposeful, and strategic (i.e. long term thinking and planning) and when he is ready to do something, he WILL do it. I also don't expect that he is or ever will be the kind of President like our last (P)resident who will simply try to cram things down Congress' throats and since the Dems in Congress have *amazingly* found their peckers again, it's unlikely that he would be able to anyway.

Just a quick thought about DADT. Have you ever considered the possibility that all that letter writing to discharged military personnel may just be part of his overall strategy (i.e. building public sympathy for repeal of DADT)? You don't suppose that there may be a reason why the letters are being publicized, do you? :shrug:

Your thought about DADT and the building public sympathy is an interesting point... and one that I often have a blind spot about because, to me, the issue is so clear cut that it doesn't require a PR campaign. I will begrudgingly concede that there are portions of the public that don't consider gays "human" enough to qualify for "human rights"... so maybe a PR campaign in advance is a sensible precaution. I will go back to my agonizingly low opinion of the American public in general, too.

You also probably have a point about timetables... though, as I posted elsewhere here, I reserve the right to judge him as having failed to live up to his campaign promises until such time as he begins making tangible efforts to live up to his campaign promises. I'm sure Obama can live with my judgements, so I don't feel bad about them.

As for the changes in direction that Obama might make, well... he can make those changes, and I do trust him to make them thoughtfully... but whenever those changes are shrouded in secrecy (i.e. not releasing info/photos for the public's/military's own good), I will harbor doubts. If Obama can't handle that, he should stop with the secrets...

I'm starting to gather that many here assume that all criticisms of Obama's actions/inactions is just some sort of recycled rage over the primaries. It feels like that is being used by many supporters of Obama to dismiss any criticisms as being irrelevant "sour grapes" or what have you. It sounds to me like that dismissal is now finding voice in the frame of the "it's only been four months"... though that may be a too broad of a brush interpretation.

In the end, you are probably right. Obama's almost certainly more attuned to the political realities than I am... I'm just a lunatic "far left"-er who thinks human rights should be a priority. DADT, accountability for torture... political suicide I suppose.

I made a very dark joke in another post about running a pool on how many Arabic Linguists in the Army will be fired for being gay before anything's done about DADT. The political sense you make makes me feel like I should see about starting a pool to see how many very public firings of military personnel will occur before this issue becomes worthy of consideration. A new one came up on Rachel Maddow tonight... which makes 4 that I know of off the top of my head... :shrug:

My concern is that discussions like ours are being overtaken by wild, hysterical, and hyperbolic knock-down drag-down brawls between people whom are intolerant of any criticism to the point of attempting to shut down any and all criticism of Obama and people whom regularly post vitriolic attacks on Obama that seem more akin to something you might read on FR and then become outraged when their attacks are challenged by other people. Heck, I've gotten attacked just for defending Obama on one or two issues.

I think that, after 8 miserable years of Bushco, some of us (and I would probably include myself in this) are concerned about the daily Repuke/MSM assault on Obama, as well as the ongoing ineffectualness of Congressional Democrats (mostly in the Senate) and worry about them undermining him and his agenda and I guess that it's only natural to feel somewhat "protective" of him. Perhaps it's causing some of us to become "blind" to some of his flaws or to go overboard whenever somebody criticizes him, rightly or wrongly, but the alternative (i.e. the Repukes getting back in power) scares the s**t out of me (and probably everybody else here)! I think that we may actually all be suffering from PTSD because of our shared experiences of living under Bushco for the last 8 years (and the reality that it could all happen again- or worse). Anyway, thanks for your comments and you make some good points.

I was recently attacked for having never liked Obama... which just made me laugh... in response to a criticism. It gradually became apparent to me that some here seem to assume that any criticisms of Obama are the result either of some left over grudges from the primaries, or the work of trolls.

Granted, both of those are a part of the board... but it would be nice if people responding would at least read the posts that they are responding to and give a few moments/minutes of thought to whether or not it's a reasonable post, or just an attempt at throwing shit at a wall to see if anything will stick.

W was the worst I've ever seen... and I came of age under Reagan and Sr. ... but one thing I learned from Clinton's administration is that the Democratic Presidents make mistakes too. Or maybe I should say they do things that I don't approve of either. And, in the current political climate, it seems to me that the efforts of the Democratic Party, very much including Obama, to absorb the "middle" that has abandoned the Republicans, is leading to an awful lot of "Rightward Trending" in policies... which is obviously fine strategy from the point of view of expanding the Democratic Party. The problem that anyone who "leans left", as I do, has with this expansion policy is that it involves... "Rightward Trending" in policies.

Personally, I view the Democratic Party as a means to establishing more progressive laws/policies on the books. I do not view "rule" by the Democratic Party to be any sort of consolation, if it requires so much "Rightward Trending" of policies that ... that it is no longer progressive.

On the other hand, I've slowly come to realize that what seems politically/policy-wise self-evident to me is apparently "far-left" by national standards. It doesn't mean I'll shut up... but it also means that I'm apparently so far out of the mainstream that Republican rule and Centrist rule feel very similar to me (W aside... that fucker was bat-shit insane...).

Just a few comments for any Centrists who might read... to maybe give some insight into the "left" (on the off chance anyone around here is looking for insights...)

That's what I don't really understand about some of the recent reactions here on DU re: DADT. Do people really believe that the president would write personal letters (that he fully understands will become very public) to service members specifically targeting DADT if he's not going to pursue repealing it?

I understand being frustrated with the issue. We all want it gone. But at the same time, the claims that the topic is dead simply don't make a lot of sense. I can understand complaining about the timetable, but the issue is quite alive and well, in my opinion.

:)

It's considered "broken" by some people.

Cut the man some slack.

Always.

:)

If someone says, I will pass it by May, then it is unfulfilled if it's not passd by then. If they say, end of first term, then it should be passed before then.

It all depends.

otherwise it is voter remorse and impeach time.

has been broken if the shit is an issue in the media or whatever yet the ferocity and verbosity displayed during the campaign is now neutered. For what it's worth I am cynical and so is my better half who serves but we both believe at least the intent is there. I think you can see that Obama wants to do the right thing just not at his own peril, he's trying to get a lot of stuff done as it is. I'm patient.

with the actions. Until his constitutional time limit runs out, he still has time to fulfill his commitments.

I would go so far as to say, today, that Obama has reneged on the DADT reversal campaign promise.

I think the definition can be changed if, tomorrow, he takes what steps he can. I think, at any given point in his term, Obama can take action... and by doing so, he will be fulfilling his campaign pledge. Every day between now and then, he is in "renegance".

Even the dodge of placing the responsibility on Congress ignores the fact that he could issue an executive order to establish a moratorium on dismissals stemming from DADT until such time as Congress has a chance to "get around" to the legislation.

It should also be kept in mind that Obama is currently actively avoiding doing anything about it. He sent a personally hand written note to Sandy Tsao when she was fired. I'm sure he heard about David Choi announcing that he was gay on Rachel Maddow... and now he's been dismissed from the army despite being an Arab linguist.
It seems obvious to me that these active duty military personnel came out specifically to draw attention to this issue. If Obama has time to compose and write a letter, he obviously is aware of the issue... and has some time to deal with it. That said, the only conclusion that I can come to regarding Obama's performance on the issue is that he has judged it to be too politically risky to take a chance on.

On the other hand... all those try to say "Well he has so many other problems to deal with, it's really not a priority right now", or some permutation of that argument... well, it seems to me that those people don't care about "equal rights" as much as they care about being able to get a car loan... and the notion that equal rights aren't a priority right now ... it just rubs me the wrong way.

Pretend you are the president for a minute. You want to pass energy, healthcare, education, DADT, EFCA, FOCA. Would your strategy be to act on all issues at once or plan a strategy that allows you to manage the individual fights.

Energy, healthcare, education are going to be tough but he may be able to do them without too much damage because they are general electorate issues. DADT, EFCA, FOCA are much more cultural and are going to cost Obama and congressional Democrats a lot of capital.

If I were in his shoes I would plan to tackle the cultural issues immediately after the 2010 midterms to give the maximum time for the scars to heal. Some think he should push through all that he can right now while he has the power but if congress thinks Obama is pushing his priorities without regard to their election chances they will push back hard, weakening both and accomplishing little.

It is a delicate balancing act and you need to think strategically to maximize your chances for success.

Many of the issues facing the administration are complicated, more so than we tend to acknowledge. I'd also prefer to see the administration address each appropriately rather than try to rush them all through. The rush approach could lead to failure of the agenda and/or results that we'd later regret.

The point about '10 is interesting, as well. It's likely that we will continue the '06/'08 trend and pick up more seats in Congress, making some of the more controversial items on the agenda more likely to be passed successfully.

Interesting....

Which was, "when is a campaign promise considered broken?", as I recall.

I wasn't actually trying to make political strategy/tactics analysis... I was trying to make an analysis of the issue mentioned, DADT, from the perspective of how that definition applied.

If we are going to change the terms of the discussion to political possibilities... give me a moment to have a shot of whiskey and change my tinfoil hat.

Ok... thinking politically... If I "want to pass energy, healthcare, education, DADT, EFCA, FOCA. " ... What is my strategy? Let's see... education is hopeless. It may be the most "important" issue... but it's hopeless... put that off. Energy is good... it has lots of job potential, and the economy needs it. Healthcare promises to be a nightmare... but it's vital to stabilize the economy. DADT, EFCA, and FOCA are all "special interests issues" for my base.

I don't give a shit that many political pundits and whatnot have tried to turn "special interests" into a bad word. I don't care that I'm supposed to be "President of All the People". There are some "special interests" that only seem "special" to the cheap bastards who would like to exploit/forget about them (Republicans).

So, what do I do as President? I issue an executive order to establish a moratorium on discharges under DADT until Congress has a chance to get to it: Bam, handled in the short term. I then get to work, under the advice of someone who's watched the West Wing more times than he/she would like to admit, on twisting some arms on EFCA and FOCA. In fact... I go out on the trail again... and I make the biggest goddamned deal of it that I can. I've got my chief of staff, my VP, the lot of them out there pushing talking points wildly while the Republicans have Michael Steele trying to pull his head out of his ass.

Meanwhile, I have some key elements of my staff working with doctors, hospitals, medical information technology wonks... that sort... some business interests that would like to see the onerous costs of modern health insurance dealt with... and maybe see if this crew can't scare up some whistle blowers or some such that know about the inner workings of the HMO industries... but who isn't the representative they send to the talks. I get this crew to hash out a plan... while I'm side-showing it for my base. My base will like it... and I might even get some shit through. Maybe I'll even see about swinging some deals to put together some over the top bills that some Dems can vote against, for political talking points later... then we scale back to what can be worked out... and then I wheel out the shiny new healthcare plan, and it (hopefully) passes.

If nothing else, I will have done my damnedest for my base... which is what got me elected.

Energy, I promise all the corporations, and unions alike... will provide more jobs, hence more spending money to buy corporate products...

Education... hell, I'll hire some Mad Scientists for a Better Tomorrow to research a drug that will make a person develop a conscience... if they succeed... I'll see about finding some shadow government agents that can drug up the Republicans and Blue Dog Dems for the vote... if not, I give it a hell of a fight and I get whipped like one of the nameless sacks of meat that fought Tyson in his heydey...

Of course, I'm no Centrist... and I'm not liable to win an election. On the other hand... my madcap theories have never been tried... they might just work...

Maybe, when you're elected President you can try your strategies out.

...eom

and end of dissuasion.

According to some here at DU

At least among those that were tolerate of an inauguration at all, for them the period between finishing the oath and lowering the hand was the honeymoon.

I received a response (in another thread on this issue) that was exactly that.

The difference being that the other responder was apparently serious.

it's that simple now I don't think it'll take that long and people are free to advocate that Congress and Obama to move faster. But it's only fair to judge him at the end of the term.


I think the reason why so many are doubtful about DADT is two fold, part of it simply has do with that Obama got off on the wrong foot with many in the gay community with the Rick Warren incident and so that difference in priorties is examined through that magnifying glass of distrust. The other issue is that there seems to be a need today to instantly analyze everthing, so every story gets combed over to see which way Obama is blowing

The Rick Warren situation did understandably raise tensions, and I think the aftermath could very well be influencing perception of the DADT issue.

And, yes, instant analysis is definitely the norm. Jumping to conclusions based on that analysis is the new national pastime.

That said... I don't envy Obama at all.

On both counts.

If he's elected to a second term, by the time the second term expires.

Seems pretty darn clear to me.

It seems to me that that would be the outside limit on promises kept. Not soon enough by any measure, but still a promise kept. DADT is a travesty, so it is impossible to be patient. It appears though, that we must wait impatiently, indefinitely.

1. There was a time limit on the promise,
or
2. Events have arisen making it impossible to fulfill the promise (such as the opposite action being performed),

And feel free to bitch right up to that very moment - just because people on a message board don't happen to share your priorities doesn't invalidate your expectations.

Thank you for making a more concise definition than I was capable of making. Nicely done. I'll now vote for your definition over mine...

Broken is what I meant, and I did use it in the body of my thread.

I'm willing to give as much leeway as possible.

Maybe I'm more cynical that most DUers, but if he gets 50% of his campaign promises completed, then he's the Golden Child.
That's more than what I would have expected out of John McMoron.

He might get bogged down on torture for a while to deal with DADT, but even if Congress repeals it just before 2012, it's still a win.

I just hope the soldiers we lost in DADT are still able to re-up to serve in the open after X number of years laid off.

By the end of his presidency, the differences between what Obama will have accomplished and what Bush did or what McCain would have will be substantial. Probably mind-boggling, for some.

The intended direction is certainly different. Heaven knows what McCain/Palin would have done by now and where we would be headed. Tax cuts fix everything!

What the current situation shows is no leadership from the President on an issue vital to equal rights and national security. He has not been showing that he wants to repeal it, he's been leaving all talk of DADT to Gates and Gibbs and the Pentagon. So, he's not broken that promise, but he has dropped the ball he claimed he'd keep in play, and he has not stood up as a leader and spoken about the great loss of such people as Lt Choi, on a personal and public basis.
He just looks really craven about so many important issues. I really did not expect so much weakness from him. I expected not DADT in an instant, but I expected Obama's views to be liberal and clearly spoken on that, and on all other issues. He's no longer Barack Obama, he's now 'Mr President Brand Executive Robot', and that is so sad that even a man like that winds up neutered by the gig.

...and we can be reasonably sure it won't be followed up on. There are various ways to fulfill a promise, though, and some of the things we need Obama to do, he's going to have to sneak them past us.

I'm hoping, for instance, for marriage equality, and Obama's tenure could still be a positive one in this respect even as he pretends to oppose it.

Re: "sneak past": an interesting point someone made in another thread - if the SC rules that the ballot measures passed by various states against marriage equality and same-sex adoption violate the 14th Amendment, they would essentially be automatically repealed.

My response was that we're (theoretically) four SC justice appointments away (including Souter's replacement) from that being a possibility, the first three replacing judges already potentially sympathetic to doing so, and the fourth being the replacement for Scalia, Alito, or Thomas, most likely.

Not the best of solutions, of course, and certainly not a short-term one, but that's the kind of item that might have to eventually "sneak past" the usual processes in order to be accomplished, at least from an all-50-states perspective.